This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: uals rent hotel or motel rooms, they are asked if they smoke so that
management may ensure that certain rooms remain free from the smell of smoke odors.
Likewise, when individuals rent cars, they are asked if they smoke so that rental agencies
can make proper accommodations to maintain vehicles for non-smokers. Further,
employers generally provide smoke-free areas for non-smokers, and employees are often
prohibited from smoking in certain areas. Given that individuals must reveal whether
they smoke in almost every aspect of life in today's society, we conclude that individuals
have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the disclosure of that information when
applying for a government job and, consequently, that Florida's right of privacy is not
implicated under these unique circumstances.
In reaching the conclusion that the right to privacy is not implicated in this case,
however, we emphasize that our holding is limited to the narrow issue [**9] presented.
Notably, we are not addressing the issue of whether an applicant, once hired, could be
compelled by a government agency to stop smoking. Equally as important, neither are we
holding today that a governmental entity can ask any type of information it chooses of
prospective job applicants.
Having determined that Kurtz has no legitimate expectation of privacy in revealing that
she is a smoker under the Florida constitution, we turn now to her claim that the
regulation violates her rights under the federal constitution. As noted, the federal 67 constitution's implicit privacy provision extends only to such fundamental interests as
marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and the rearing and educating
of children. Carey. Clearly, the "right to smoke" is not included within the penumbra of
fundamental rights protected under that provision. Grusendorf v. City of Oklahoma City,
816 F.2d 539 (10th Cir. 1987) (the act of smoking a cigarette does not rise to the level of
a fundamental right). Moreover, even if we were to find that some protected interest
under the federal constitution were implicated so as to require a rational basis for the...
View Full Document
- Spring '08